The devil in the detail

A panoply of suspicious permits slithers octopus-like across the land. We are told not to be alarmed when a refusal is overturned as this is a frequent event.

The myth runs that it is environmentalists who barricade against those who believe they can do what they like on their land, irrespective of the impact on rural landscapes and ecosystems. The latter are a mob in their own right, and together with their architects they ride roughshod over environmentally protected rural areas, sometimes apparently assisted by a development control board.

In fact, the regulations, guidelines and policies that are repeatedly quoted by environment groups, come out of the part of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority that deserves better support - the former environmental protection department. The reform of Mepa must not be allowed to further weaken existing safeguards, but rather promote and enforce them.

According to Mepa's own structure plan the permitted forms of non-urban development outside urban areas are supposed to be restricted. Built structures in non-urban areas are prohibited, except for genuine agricultural buildings. Even facilities for public picnic areas or parks may only be considered if they contribute to preserving the environmental quality of the countryside.

Applications for extension are often filed after the first ODZ permit is secured. This has become a pattern. It is ridiculous to give these applications the green light when no objections are received from the public, simultaneously ignoring the case officer's recommendation to refuse the permit.

Most of the abusive cases, in which it is claimed there were no objections, started off in this way with a litany of harmless phrases, the beginning of an unacceptable end.

An application to "replace a dangerous roof" has been used as an excuse to demolish an older structure. (Oops, it collapsed during works!) A "reservoir" can be the precursor of a future swimming pool after the initial permit comes out.

Some architects tend to read much more into the word "rehabilitate" than anyone would imagine. A permit being pursued by architect Charles Buhagiar, the ex-environment minister under a previous Labour government, is being watched with keen interest.

Planning application 2415/09 is requesting a permit "to rehabilitate various scattered dilapidated buildings (previously as a dwelling) into a new dwelling" over a wide area at Wied Gerzuma, not far from Bahrija.

Sounds familiar? It is a formula not unlike the one applied in the Victor Scerri-Robert Musumeci case.

There are shades of the recently refused Mellieha case too, as the outline of this development sweeps across the valley bed. A representation was submitted to Mepa before the 15-day window for objections from the public closed last Sunday.

The objection received by Mepa was from Flimkien ghal Ambjent Ahjar. The environment group has recently been bad-mouthed for picking on developments with Nationalist links. The objection to the Buhagiar application should redress any perceived political imbalance.

In its objection, FAA quoted Mepa's own policy, which says that no form of urban development will be permitted outside existing and committed built-up areas and primary development areas as designated in the Structure Plan. This applies even where roads and public utilities are available. Any form of residence is generally considered to fall within the category of urbanisation.

If we do not respect this policy, then the remaining countryside will, over the years, be lost to building sprawl. It will not stop until all the gaps between 'farmhouses' have been filled.

Another application, PA 6350/07, in which Musumeci is also involved, has been submitted for the development of a 'tool room' near the Bronze Age village on the coast near Bahrija. This one needs watching, along with the rest.

As yet, no date has been set for this application to come before the deciding board. Notes to the committee are currently being drawn up by the case officer who is to confirm if there are other tool rooms.

It is difficult to see how the existence of other tool rooms could justify overriding clear environmental constraints and planning policy. The area is riddled with illegal huts. A sign proclaims that whoever is caught wandering in the area will be prosecuted.

Last Tuesday, Mepa defended the permitting of a building block next to Qala's belvedere, overlooking the Gozo channel. The infringement history of the Xerri complex started with a ridge-top terrace extension without a permit, referred for direct action in 1996. Ten years passed during which nothing happened. It was referred again to the senior area enforcement officer for direct action.

This appears to have meant nothing to the development control committee since the long-standing enforcement notice was superseded by the granting of a permit for the illegal extension.

The Gozo local plan passed in July 2006 writes off the area, citing that it is close to urban settlement. The site is within an ODZ category, which releases land for development with the intention of filling in gaps.

Qala's latest eyesore, like so many others, is pushing Mepa's reasoning to the limits.